Vaticanus Distigme-obelos Symbols Marking Added Text, Including 1 Corinthians 14.34-5
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
New Test. Stud. (), , pp. –. © Payne Loving Trust,
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creative-
commons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, pro-
vided the original work is properly cited.
doi:10.1017/S0028688517000121
Vaticanus Distigme-obelos Symbols Marking
Added Text, Including 1 Corinthians 14.34–5
P H I L I P B . PAY N E
Linguist’s Software, 844 Alder St., Edmonds, WA 98020, USA.
Email: philip.b.payne@gmail.com
The two-dot-plus-bar ‘distigme-obelos’ symbols in Vaticanus signal added text.
Five characteristic features distinguish their obeloi from paragraphoi. Like
scribe B’s LXX obeloi, all eight distigme-obelos symbols mark the location of
added text. A gap at the exact location of a widely recognised, multi-word add-
ition follows every distigme-obelos except one with distinctive downward
dipping strokes. The Vaticanus Gospels are so early that they have virtually
no high stops, a feature older than even . Consequently, they contain none
of these additions, but the Vaticanus epistles have high stops throughout
and contain their one distigme-obelos-marked addition, Cor .–.
Contemporaneous LXX G has corresponding distigmai.
Keywords: distigme, obelos, distigme-obelos, Vaticanus, Cor .–, LXX G, ,
Introduction
This article publishes for the first time all eight instances in codex
Vaticanus B (henceforth, Vaticanus) where a distigme identifying a textual
variant is combined with a bar that has five specific characteristics. It argues
that just as bar-shaped obeloi in the Vaticanus prophets identify the locations
of blocks of added text, so do all eight distigme-obelos symbols in the
Vaticanus NT. Milne, Skeat and Canart ascribe each Vaticanus LXX book with
obeloi and asterisks to the same scribe who penned the Vaticanus NT,
D. Parker, H. Houghton, T. Wasserman, M. Holmes, T. Brown, P. Canart, P. Andrist, P. Payne
and classicist A. Kelly chose this name (plural, distigmai). For their reasons, see P. Payne and
P. Canart, ‘Distigmai Matching the Original Ink of Codex Vaticanus: Do They Mark the
Location of Textual Variants?’, Le manuscrit B de la Bible (Vaticanus graecus ):
Introduction au fac-similé, Actes du Colloque de Genève ( juin ), Contributions
supplémentaires (ed. P. Andrist; Lausanne: Éditions du Zèbre, ) –, at –.
The current article uses this now-conventional name and the corresponding Greek forms
‘obelos’, ‘obeloi’ and ‘distigme-obelos’ to be consistent with recent scholarly literature
about these Vaticanus symbols.
See below, pp. –.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 46.4.80.155, on 08 Aug 2021 at 01:54:27, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0028688517000121Vaticanus Distigme-obelos Symbols Mark Added Text
scribe B. On the line to the right of each distigme-obelos symbol – except
one with a downward stroke from both dots and the bar, indicating a different
hand – is a gap (henceforth, ‘following gap’) in the text at the exact location of
a multi-word block of text widely recognised as not original, but added later
(henceforth, ‘added text’). Only the original scribe could have put these gaps in
the text. The distigme at Luke . matches the original Vaticanus ink.
Therefore, since obeloi mark the location of added text, their conjunction with
a gap at the exact location of added text is most naturally explained if scribe B
penned these symbols and left the following gap to mark where text was added.
It appears that all studies of distigmai in Vaticanus agree that distigmai correl-
ate closely with the location of textual variants. Probability tests confirm this cor-
relation to a high degree of reliability. Ever since Canart concluded that fifty-one
distigmai match the apricot colour of the original Vaticanus ink on the same page
and identified traces of original ink protruding from some evidently re-inked dis-
tigmai, there has been a growing acceptance that at least the original-ink-colour
distigmai date to the fourth century and mark the location of textual variants.
H. Milne and T. Skeat, Scribes and Correctors of the Codex Sinaiticus (London: British Museum,
) –; T. Skeat, ‘The Codex Sinaiticus, the Codex Vaticanus, and Constantine’, JTS NS
() –, at ; P. Canart, ‘Le Vaticanus graecus : notice paléographique et codi-
cologique’, Le manuscrit B, –, at .
As concluded by E. Gravely, ‘The Relationship of the Vaticanus Umlauts to Family ’, Digging
for the Truth: Collected Essays Regarding the Byzantine Text of the Greek New Testament:
A Festschrift in Honor of Maurice A. Robinson (ed. M. Billington and P. Streitenberger;
Norden, Germany: FYM, ) –, at and T. Wasserman, The Epistle of Jude: Its Text
and Transmission (CBNTS ; Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, ) .
Payne and Canart, ‘Distigmai’, – identify two chi-square test results, both showing that
the probability of such a high correlation between original-ink-colour distigmai and NA
textual variants occurring in random distribution is far less than in ,.
Payne and Canart, ‘Distigmai’, –, – identify protruding ink at A and B.
In both cases NA cites a variant. Original-ink-colour distigmai occur by each of the six
columns in roughly even distribution: respectively, eight, nine, seven, seven, nine, eleven.
Consequently, they defy any explanation of their distinctive apricot colour based on their
position on the page.
Including W. Willker, ‘Codex Vaticanus Graece , B/: The Umlauts’, www.willker.de/
wie/Vaticanus/umlauts.html; J. Miller, ‘Some Observations on the Text-Critical Function of
the Umlauts in Vaticanus, with Special Attention to Corinthians .–’, JSNT ()
–; E. Epp, Junia: The First Woman Apostle (Minneapolis: Fortress, ) –;
Wasserman, Jude, ; C. Amphoux, ‘Codex Vaticanus B: les points diacritiques des marges
de Marc’, JTS NS () –, at ; P. Andrist, ‘Le milieu de production du
Vaticanus graecus et son histoire postérieure: le canon d’Eusèbe, les listes du IVe
siècle des livres canoniques, les distigmai et les manuscrits connexes’, Le manuscrit B, –
, at –; Canart, ‘Vaticanus graecus ’, ; A. Lavrinovica, ‘.Kor.:, –
Interpolācija?’ (Master’s Thesis, University of Latvia, ) –; A. Forte, ‘Observations on
the th Revised Edition of Nestle–Aland’s Novum Testamentum Graece’, Biblica ()
–, at –; J. Shack, ‘A Text Without Corinthians .–? Not According to the
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 46.4.80.155, on 08 Aug 2021 at 01:54:27, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0028688517000121 PHILIP B. PAYNE
Other surviving NT manuscripts contain a variant reading in over per cent of
these fifty-one distigme locations.
This article begins by establishing the use of distigmai near the time of
Vaticanus in the fourth- or fifth-century LXX G. It then provides evidence that
scribe B repeatedly left comments explaining that obeloi signify added text.
After analysing the eight distigme-obelos symbols in the Vaticanus NT, it argues
from the form and function of their characteristic bars that it is highly improbable
these eight bars are simply paragraphoi unrelated either to the distigme or to the
added text at the exact point of the following gap.
The article concludes by providing an explanation why the Vaticanus Gospels
do not include any of the blocks of added text their five distigme-obelos symbols
mark, but the Vaticanus epistles do include the block of added text their one dis-
tigme-obelos marks. The contrast between the presence of high stops throughout
the Vaticanus epistles and their virtually complete absence from the Vaticanus
Gospels indicates that practically all the Vaticanus Gospels’ text preceded the
adding of high stops and so is earlier than the Vaticanus epistles’ text. It is even
earlier than ’s text, which has high stops throughout. This vindicates scholarly
judgement that the Vaticanus Gospels’ text is earlier than its epistles’ text. Its text
is so early that it preceded all five of its distigme-obelos-marked additions, hence
their omission from its Gospels.
This study demonstrates that scribe B was a careful textual critic who identifies
Cor .–, the only Bible passage silencing women in the church, as added
text. Vaticanus provides early and credible judgement in what is widely regarded
as the most important NT manuscript that vv. – were not in the body text Paul’s
original letter, but are a later addition. This is important theologically since it
offers a resolution to the notorious difficulty of reconciling vv. – with Paul’s
many affirmations of women in vocal ministry and their equal standing with
men in Christ.
Manuscript Evidence’, JGRChJ () –, at n. ; and Gravely, ‘Vaticanus
Umlauts’, .
All but numbers , , and in Payne and Canart, ‘Distigmai’, –. R. Swanson, New
Testament Greek Manuscripts, Variant Readings Arranged in Horizontal Lines against Codex
Vaticanus: Corinthians (Wheaton, IL/Pasadena, CA: Tyndale House/William Carey, )
, , and lists variants for numbers , , and at Cor .–; .;
.; and ..
E.g. S. Pisano, ‘The Text of the New Testament’, Bibliorum Sacrorum Graecorum Codex
Vaticanus B: Prolegomena (Rome: Istituto Poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato, ) –, at .
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 46.4.80.155, on 08 Aug 2021 at 01:54:27, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0028688517000121Vaticanus Distigme-obelos Symbols Mark Added Text
. Does Any Manuscript near the Time of Vaticanus Contain
Distigmai?
The most extensive early hexaplaric manuscript known, the fourth- or fifth-
century codex Colberto-Sarravianus, called LXX G (henceforth, ‘G’), also marks
the location of textual variants using distigmai. For example, the distigme at G
B (Deut .) marks a textual variant between G and the LXX (see Fig. ). The
distigme in the margin is at the exact point where G omits words that occur in
both the MT and LXX standard texts: καὶ τῷ ἐπιδεομένῳ, ‘and to the one
who is distressed’. It identifies where G text differs from the standard LXX text.
Thus, like the Vaticanus distigmai, it marks the location of a Greek textual
variant.
Figure . Distigme at LXX G B. Image made by the author from
Vetus Testamentum graece: codicis Sarraviani-Colbertini quae supersunt
in bibliothecis Leidensi, Parisiensi, Petropolitana phototypice edita
(ed. H. Omont; Leiden: A. W. Sijthoff, ).
G’s distigmai confirm that D. Parker was correct to reject C. Niccum’s argu-
ments that it is ‘likely’ the distigmai ‘originated with Sepulveda … Payne success-
fully vindicated his case [against Niccum’s critique]’. They also confirm
E. Gravely’s case against ‘the most recent (and only current) arguments for a
late date for all the Vaticanus umlauts’ by P. Head. Stark differences in ink
Explanatio signorum, quae in Septuaginta (ed. A. Rahlfs; Stuttgart: Württembergische
Bibelanstalt, ).
Similarly, the distigme at G B marks ποτε as an addition to both the standard LXX text
and the MT. If the two dots were joined, the resulting line would be far shorter than any G
obelos. G A’s distigme marks text replacing the MT. G A and A’s distigmai
function as obeloi.
D. Parker, ‘Through a Screen Darkly: Digital Texts and the New Testament’, JSNT () –
, at n. . C. Niccum, ‘The Voice of the Manuscripts on the Silence of Women: The
External Evidence for Cor .–’, NTS () –, at , n. . P. Payne and P.
Canart, ‘The Originality of Text-critical Symbols in Codex Vaticanus’, NovT () –,
at n. and P. Payne, Man and Woman, One in Christ: An Exegetical and Theological
Study of Paul’s Letters (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, ) – rebut Niccum’s arguments.
Gravely, ‘Vaticanus Umlauts’, – regarding P. Head, ‘The Marginalia of Codex Vaticanus:
Putting the Distigmai in their Place’, presented to the SBL New Testament Textual Criticism
Seminar, New Orleans, . Cf. E. Gravely, ‘The Text Critical Sigla in Codex Vaticanus’
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 46.4.80.155, on 08 Aug 2021 at 01:54:27, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0028688517000121 PHILIP B. PAYNE
colour in the same Vaticanus distigme, such as B, A and B,
are not compatible with Head’s assertion that distigmai are all the product of the
same process and of approximately the same date. Scribe B copied hexaplaric
obeloi and asterisks, so may have also copied distigme use from a hexaplaric
manuscript such as G, especially since the extensive parallels between these
two manuscripts suggest they came from the same scriptorium.
. Did Scribe B Understand that Obeloi Mark Added Text?
Scribe B used obeloi extensively and explained that they mark added text.
Vaticanus is the principal manuscript showing hexaplaric readings in Isaiah and
also uses them in Zechariah, Malachi and Jeremiah. By the author’s count,
Vaticanus contains obeloi but only twelve asterisks. This illustrates the
LXX translators’ far greater tendency to add than to omit text from the MT.
Most obeloi are faint and appear to match the apricot colour of the original
Vaticanus ink. Every Vaticanus LXX obelos is bar-shaped except four with two
dots and a long bar (÷), each marking text not in the MT. One of these four is
in the middle of text ( C at Isa .), so is properly assigned to scribe B.
Vaticanus explains what obeloi signify three times in Isaiah adjacent to an
obelos: οι ωβʹ ου κʹ πʹ εβρʹ (οἱ ὠβελίσμενοι οὐ κεῖται παρ᾽ ἑβραίοις),
‘the [lines] marked with an obelos contain [text] not in [the] Hebrew [text]’. In
addition, Canart judges the explanation ου κʹ πʹ εβρʹ to be in the same ink as
(PhD diss., Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, ) –, www.pbpayne.com/
wp-content/uploads///Critique-of-Vaticanus-Marginalia-Apr.pdf, gives a detailed
critique of Head’s argument.
Payne and Canart, ‘Distigmai’, –, with a magnified photograph, Plate b.
Daniel Buck suggests this, noting that both omit Deut .’s τον θεον υμων at http://
evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com///putting-distigmai-in-their-place-payne_.
html. Both are biblical manuscripts of similar date with hexaplaric content and extensive text
in double columns (all surviving G pages and Vaticanus –) on vellum by skilled cal-
ligraphers using similar letter-forms. Scholars identify Alexandria as the provenance of both G
and Vaticanus. They share similar use of distigmai, bar-shaped and ÷ shaped obeloi, asterisks,
diplai, nomina sacra and spelling (ει for ι).
Andrist, ‘Le milieu’, ; Plate b shows both asterisks and obeloi. J. Ziegler, ed., Isaias
(Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum
Gottingensis editum ; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, ) – identifies B and
V as the main group of hexaplaric witnesses for Isaiah.
bar-shaped obeloi (Isaiah has ninety-two, Jeremiah nine, Zechariah eleven, Malachi five),
÷ shaped obeloi in Isaiah, asterisks each in Zechariah and Isaiah.
The ÷ shaped obelos occurs by C, C and C (twice).
Ziegler, Isaias, incorrectly writes that there are no obeloi in the text.
At Isa .; .; . and abbreviated ου κʹ πʹ εβρʹ at Isa .; Zech .. Cf. Ziegler,
Isaias, . Peter Gentry’s June email to the author identifies ὠβελίσμενοι as the
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 46.4.80.155, on 08 Aug 2021 at 01:54:27, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0028688517000121Vaticanus Distigme-obelos Symbols Mark Added Text
the original text of Vaticanus at A, B (πʹ εβρʹ in original ink),
A, C and B, locations with no obelos. Each signals text not in
the MT. Their original apricot colour, their lack of obeloi, and the same explan-
ation in apparently original ink with an obelos at A, make scribe B the
most likely originator of the Vaticanus ου κʹ πʹ εβρʹ abbreviations. All this indi-
cates that scribe B knew enough about the Hebrew MT to mark where the LXX
added text to the MT, even where Vaticanus’ exemplar had no obelos. It also indi-
cates that scribe B faithfully copied the exemplar without even adding obeloi.
The obelos was the standard symbol for spurious text in ancient Greek litera-
ture. Indeed, it was its ‘first and most important’ text-critical symbol.
F. Schironi argues it has ‘a rather unequivocal meaning’ so the reader knows
that an obelised ‘line is considered spurious, and this is an unambiguous piece
of information’. Basil (ca. –), Hex. –, identifies the obelos in the LXX
as ἀθετήσεως σύμβολον, a symbol of spurious text. Consequently, scribe B
would understand that adding an obelos to a distigme would specify what kind
of variant it marked, namely added text.
perfect medio-passive of ὀβελίζω. The OdysseaUBSU Greek font used throughout this article
is available from www.linguistsoftware.com/lgku.htm.
June email to the author, ‘Dans tous les endroits indiqués, l’encre, pâle, me semble la
même que celle des passages non repassée.’
Respectively, Zech ., ‘my Lord’; Isa ., ‘and gathered’; Isa ., ‘exhausted, hungry’; Jer
., ‘wild’; and Jer ., ‘as of a woman in travail’.
Canart, October email to the author, ‘l’encre, très pâle, pourrait être celle de l’original’.
E. Turner, Greek Manuscripts of the Ancient World (London: University of London Institute of
Classical Studies, ) , ‘obelos … to indicate spurious text’; V. Gardthausen, Griechische
Paleographie, vol. II: Die Schrift, Unterschriften und Chronologie im Altertum und im byzanti-
nischen Mittelalter ( vols.; Leipzig: Veit, –) II.–, ‘zur Tilgung von Worten und
Buchstaben … Athetesen, durch einen Obelus’, cites ‘Diogenes Laert. ,–, ὀβελὸς
πρὸς τὴν ἀθέτησιν’; D. Parker, An Introduction to the New Testament Manuscripts and
their Texts (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ) explains the obelos as ‘a
symbol indicating a measure of uncertainty … Nestle–Aland … double square brackets
around the text serve the same function … (German text p. *; English text, p. *): they “indi-
cate that the enclosed words, generally of some length, are known not to be part of the original
[ursprunglichen] text.”’ N. de Lange, ‘The Letter to Africanus: Origen’s Recantation?’, Papers
Presented to the Seventh International Conference on Patristic Studies held in Oxford ,
Part II (ed. E. Livingstone; StPatr ; TU ; Berlin: Academie-Verlag, ) –, at ,
‘spurious’; F. Schironi, ‘The Ambiguity of Signs: Critical ΣΗΜΕΙΑ from Zenodotus to
Origen’, Homer and the Bible in the Eyes of Ancient Interpreters (ed. M. Niehoff; Leiden/
Boston: Brill, ) –, esp. , , , , ‘athetesis’, ‘spurious’, ‘addition’. LSJ
p. s.v. ὀβελός II ‘a critical mark to point out that a passage was spurious’, p. s.v.
ἀθετέω II ‘Gramm., reject as spurious’.
L. D. Reynolds and N. G. Wilson, Scribes and Scholars: A Guide to the Transmission of Greek
and Latin Literature (Oxford: Oxford University Press, ) .
Schironi, ‘Ambiguity’, .
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 46.4.80.155, on 08 Aug 2021 at 01:54:27, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0028688517000121 PHILIP B. PAYNE
. The Eight Vaticanus Distigmai Adjacent to a Characteristic Bar
Eight bars in the Vaticanus NT adjacent to a distigme correspond in shape
to scribe B’s LXX obeloi but are graphically different in two respects from the
Vaticanus paragraphoi that occur at random adjacent to a distigme. First, they
protrude into the margin, on average, . mm compared to a sharply contrasting
. mm for the twenty undisputed paragraphoi. Their greater extension into the
margin brings them closer to the adjacent distigme, associating them with the
standard Vaticanus symbol marking the location of textual variants. The charac-
teristic bar adjacent to a distigme at the interface of Cor . and extends
mm into the margin. In contrast, the seventy-five other bars in Corinthians
extend, on average, mm into the margin, and only one of these seventy-five
extends mm into the margin ( B). Greater extension into the margin
is their primary graphic distinction, but they also average . mm long compared
to the remaining twenty bars’ . mm average length. Thus, not only do they
extend on average almost twice as far into the margin as these twenty undisputed
paragraphoi, they are, on average, almost one third longer, as the characteristic
bars near paragraphoi in Figs. – illustrate.
Of the twenty-eight bars following a distigme, only these eight combine notice-
ably further extension into the margin with noticeably greater length.
The function of the eight bars in question also evidently differs from paragra-
phoi. Each occurs at the location of a widely acknowledged block of added text.
The NA apparatus identifies a multi-word textual variant at least three words
long at each of these eight locations. In each case, at least two words are com-
pletely different from the Vaticanus text, not just different forms of the same
word. ‘Multi-word variant’ entails this characteristic henceforth.
NA’s apparatus is an appropriate basis for assessing whether distigme-obelos
symbols are text-critical symbols since NA identifies ‘variants of text-historical
relevance’. Multi-word additions have important text-historical relevance.
Scribe B marked added text in the LXX prophets with obeloi and explanations
‘The margin’ is at the far-left edge of letters on the margin, excluding τ υ Φ and ψ, whose
vertical stroke is at the margin, and χ, which straddles the margin. The VaticanusLSU font is
available from www.linguistsoftware.com/ntmssu.htm.
Excluding the bar at B since it is noticeably lower than all the other eight paragraphoi on
–; it does not match the surrounding text’s ink colour or stroke thickness, but rather the
colour, graininess and stroke thickness of the ink of the adjacent, later, marginal addition; and,
unlike every other paragraphos bar in Corinthians, it does not underscore the first letter of its
line. Contrast the paragraphos five lines later, at B, that crosses a φ’s descender, just
as paragraphoi cross the descender of all eight adjacent φs (B, C, C, B,
B, C, A, B) and all twelve adjacent ρs (C, B, C, A, B, B,
A, A, A, A, C, B) in Matthew.
NA, *.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 46.4.80.155, on 08 Aug 2021 at 01:54:27, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0028688517000121Vaticanus Distigme-obelos Symbols Mark Added Text
Figure . Matthew .. Photograph by author.
Figure . Luke .–. Photograph by author.
Figure . Corinthians .– and –. Photographs by author.
that text was added. This proves he or she regarded blocks of added text as signifi-
cant. B. Ehrman, as others, argues that ‘even readings that are not attested in the
fragmentary remains of the ante-Nicene age … are by and large best understood
as deriving from documents of the first three centuries … The vast majority of all
‘Or she’ reflects Eusebius’ record of the employment of ‘girls skilled in penmanship (κόραις
ἐπὶ τὸ καλλιγραφεῖν ἠσκημέναις)’ in Origen’s scriptorium at Caesarea, Eusebius, Hist.
eccl. .. (trans. J. Oulton, LCL, ) II.–. Similarly, Gerontius, Life of Melania
praises the calligraphic copying (καλλιγραφοῦσα) of Melania the Younger. W. Doerpfeld
and H. Hepding, Die Arbeiten zu Pergamon –, vol. II: Die Inschriften, Mitteilungen
des kaiserlich deutschen archäologischen Instituts, Athenische Abteilung () no. iden-
tifies an inscription in Pergamum of a girl who wins a contest in καλλιγραφία. For more evi-
dence, see K. Haines-Eitzen, The Gendered Palimpsest: Women, Writing, and Representation in
Early Christianity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, ) – and –.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 46.4.80.155, on 08 Aug 2021 at 01:54:27, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0028688517000121 PHILIP B. PAYNE
textual variants originated during … the second and third centuries.’ This high-
lights the value of the NA apparatus for identifying early textual variants.
Following all eight distigmai adjacent to a characteristic bar, except the one
whose downward dipping strokes indicate that a different scribe penned it, there is
a gap either in the middle or at the end of the line of text at the exact location of a
multi-word, widely acknowledged block of added text. By contrast, a gap occurs in
only twelve of the twenty lines following a distigme adjacent to an undisputed para-
graphos ( per cent). Thus, both their characteristic form and apparent function
distinguish these eight bars from paragraphoi and support viewing them as dis-
tigme-obelos symbols. The following analysis, however, refers to them neutrally as
‘characteristic bars’ until concluding that they are distigme-obelos symbols.
Following five of the seven apparently original characteristic bars, scribe B left
a mid-line gap at least one letter wide at the exact location where other manu-
scripts add text. This far exceeds the average in Matthew of a correspondingly
wide, mid-line gap only once every . lines of text. The other two bars are
at the location of a block of added text at a gap at the end of a line that is at
least one letter shorter than the average line length in that column.
Following are images of all eight distigmai adjacent to a characteristic bar
(Figs. –). Each figure’s title gives that passage’s verse reference and its
Vaticanus page number and column. The triangle in each image identifies the
exact location of widely recognised, added text. After each image are the added
text and the manuscripts NA, NA, and/or Swanson lists with this addition or
providing evidence of it.
Figure . Matthew . B. Photograph by author.
B. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological
Controversies on the Text of the New Testament (Oxford: Oxford University Press, ) .
Cf., similarly, E. Colwell, ‘The Origin of Texttypes of New Testament Manuscripts’, Early
Christian Origins: Studies in Honor of Harold R. Willoughby (ed. A. Wikgren; Chicago:
Quadrangle, ) –, at and B. Aland, ‘Die Münsteraner Arbeit am Text des
Neuen Testaments und ihr Beitrag für die frühe Überlieferung des . Jahrhunderts: Eine meth-
odologische Betrachtung’, Gospel Traditions in the Second Century: Origins, Recensions, Text,
and Transmission (ed. W. Petersen; Notre Dame/London: University of Notre Dame, ) –
, at , ‘Fast alle Varianten, die in den Papyri vorkommen, waren vorher schon aus späteren
Handschriften bekannt.’
Eight have no gap: C, B, A, B, C, B, B, B. Nine
have a mid-line gap: B, A, C, B, A, A, C, A, C.
Three have a line-ending gap: C, B, B.
Namely gaps . cm or longer in of the Vaticanus lines in Matthew.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 46.4.80.155, on 08 Aug 2021 at 01:54:27, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0028688517000121Vaticanus Distigme-obelos Symbols Mark Added Text
λέγει αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς C K L N W Γ Δ Θ . . . . . .
. f h q syc.p.h bomss (a vgmss mae)
Figure . Matthew . A. Photograph by author.
ἦλθεν γὰρ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου (+ ζητῆσαι Lmg καὶ . c c syh bopt)
σῶσαι τὸ ἀπολωλός D K Lmg N W Γ Δ Θc vid. . . . c. .
lat syc.p.h bopt
Figure . Mark . C. Photograph by author.
ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς M Φ pc syh**
Figure . Luke . A. Photograph by author.
εὐλογημένη σὺ ἐν γυναιξίν A C D K Γ Δ Θ . . . . l
latt sy bomss; Eus
Figure . Luke .– C. Photograph by author.
B. Metzger and B. Ehrman, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and
Restoration (New York: Oxford University Press, ) – conclude that text is early:
‘Textual analysis of the Gospel according to Mark indicates that the type of text preserved
in [ …] appears to go back to the type current in Caesarea in the third and fourth centuries.’
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 46.4.80.155, on 08 Aug 2021 at 01:54:27, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0028688517000121 PHILIP B. PAYNE
πολλοὶ γάρ εἰσιν κλητοὶ, ὀλίγοι δὲ ἐκλεκτοὶ Ec Fmg G Y M* S Γ Λ Ω c
c . c. . . mg. al
Canart confirmed that the Luke . distigme matches the colour of the ori-
ginal Vaticanus ink.
Figure . Acts . B. Photograph by author.
ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ. ἐν δὲ ταῖς ἡμέραις ταύταις D (p) mae
Figure . Acts . A. Photograph by author.
διὰ τὸ ἐλέγχεσθαι αὐτοὺς ἐπ’ αὐτοῦ (διότι ἠλέγχοντο ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ Ε)
μετὰ πάσης παρρησίας· μὴ δυνάμενοι οὖ ἀντοφθαλμεῖν (ἐπειδὴ οὐκ
ἠδύναντο ἀντιλέγειν Ε) τῇ ἀληθείᾳ D h t w syhmg (mae)
Acts . is the only one of these eight whose following line of text contains no
noticeable gap. Both dots and the bar have downward strokes that are strikingly
different from the other seven and distinguish it from the handwriting of scribe
B. Consequently, it is highly doubtful this distigme and characteristic bar were
in the original text. Furthermore, the added text is not as memorable as any of
the other seven. Pamphilus and Eusebius circulated Origen’s edited LXX text
with obeloi and asterisks extensively in Palestine in the fourth century, so its
readers, and any reader familiar with the obelos, including the obeloi in the
Vaticanus prophetic books, would know that the obelos identifies the location
of added text. Presumably, one such scribe or reader understood that a distigme
plus an obelos-shaped characteristic bar marks added text and inserted this one at
Acts . to mark that another manuscript adds text here.
Payne and Canart, ‘Distigmai’, – and –. P. Payne, ‘Fuldensis, Sigla for Variants in
Vaticanus, and Cor .–’, NTS () –, at incorrectly omitted it because
in the only colour facsimile available to him then, Novum Testamentum e Codice Vaticano
Graeco (Codex B) tertia vice phototypice expressum (Vatican: Bibliotheca Apostolica
Vaticana, ) , it is red, not the original apricot colour.
H. Swete, ‘Septuagint’, ISBE () IV..
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 46.4.80.155, on 08 Aug 2021 at 01:54:27, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0028688517000121Vaticanus Distigme-obelos Symbols Mark Added Text
Figure . Corinthians .– A. Photograph by author.
αἱ γυναῖκες ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις σειγάτωσαν· οὐ γὰρ ἐπιτρέπεται
αὐταῖς λαλεῖν, ἀλλὰ ὑποτασσέσθωσαν, καθὼς καὶ ὁ νόμος λέγει. εἰ δέ
τι μαθεῖν θέλουσιν, ἐν οἴκῳ τοὺς ἰδίους ἄνδρας ἐπερωτάτωσαν·
αἰσχρὸν γάρ γυναικὶ λαλεῖν ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ. Vss / pon. p. D F G ar b
vgms; Ambst ¦ [– Straatman cj]. D. Parker observes, ‘Such variation in positioning
often indicates an interpolation.’
If this distigme had indicated a transposition to the ‘Western’ location, there
should also have been a distigme after v. to indicate the corresponding
variant there – but there is no distigme after v. . In any event, no other
Vaticanus distigme plus characteristic bar occurs where there is a transposition
within a passage. They all mark the location of multi-word additions, just like
scribe B’s obeloi in the Vaticanus prophetic books do. Consequently, this distigme
plus characteristic bar far more appropriately identifies the addition of .–
than a transposition.
Should one trust scribe B’s distigme-obelos marking .– as added text?
NA and manuscript evidence confirms a block of added text at the gap after
every other scribe B distigme-obelos. To judge from the range of manuscripts
reflected in those textual variants and original-ink-colour distigme variants and
by the Vaticanus Gospel’s early text, scribe B had access to far more early manu-
script text than is now extant, enough to trust scribe B’s judgement on .–.
Transcriptional probability also argues that these verses’ differing locations
result from a marginal gloss, not transposition. ‘The reading which can
most easily explain the derivation of the other forms is itself most likely the ori-
ginal.’ No Pauline manuscript transposes any other passage nearly this large
Parker, Introduction, , . ‘Gloss’, however, avoids misunderstanding since some writers
define ‘interpolation’ as deliberate polishing of the body text, but a ‘gloss’ as text written in the
margin and later inserted into the text by copyists, as seems more likely here.
E.g. the wide range of manuscripts that represent variants marked by distigmai matching the
colour of the original ink of Vaticanus that are listed in Payne and Canart, ‘Distigmai’, –
and –.
K. Aland and B. Aland, The Text of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Critical Editions
and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism (trans. E. Rhodes; Leiden/Grand
Rapids: Brill/Eerdmans, ) ; Metzger and Ehrman, The Text, , ‘Perhaps the most
basic criterion for the evaluation of variant readings is the simple maxim, “choose the
reading that best explains the origin of the others”.’
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 46.4.80.155, on 08 Aug 2021 at 01:54:27, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0028688517000121 PHILIP B. PAYNE
this far without an obvious reason. The most detailed attempt to find long trans-
positions in ‘Western’ manuscripts identifies only three instances. The longest
moves a seven- or eleven-word benediction three verses forward for the
obvious reason, to make ‘an apt conclusion to the letter’. A thirty-six- to forty-
word transposition five verses away with no obvious reason is unprecedented
in any Pauline manuscript. It was conventional, however, for scribes to copy
text in the margin, including reader comments, into the body text, as U. Schmid
has shown. Vaticanus itself exemplifies this convention. Seventeen of its
twenty instances of readable small uncial text in the margins of Matthew
appear in the body text of most later manuscripts. Something conventional is
far more likely to occur than something unprecedented. One early copyist appar-
ently inserted vv. – from the margin into the text after v. , which gave rise to
their ‘Western’ location. Another early copyist apparently inserted vv. – after v.
, which gave rise to their usual location. This is the only explanation of this
text’s two locations congruent with common scribal practice. A marginal gloss
far better explains both locations of vv. – than does an unprecedented trans-
position for no obvious reason. It is doubtful that vv. – could fit in a papyrus
margin if written in Paul’s ‘large hand’.
At least sixty-two textual studies argue that .– is a later addition.
J. Fitzmyer notes that ‘the majority of commentators today’ regard vv. – as a
The different endings of Romans best explain the different locations of its doxology: at .–,
after . and after ., as argued by Parker, Introduction, , , ‘there is compelling
evidence that fourteen and fifteen chapter forms existed … the Doxology is evidently a con-
cluding formula’, H. Gamble, Jr., The Textual History of the Letter to the Romans: A Study in
Textual and Literary Criticism (SD ; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, ) and, particularly
insightful, L. Hurtado, ‘The Doxology at the End of Romans’, New Testament Textual
Criticism: Its Significance for Exegesis. Essays in Honour of Bruce M. Metzger (ed. E. Epp and
G. Fee; Oxford: Clarendon, ) –.
J. J. Kloha, ‘A Textual Commentary on Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians’ (PhD diss., The
University of Leeds, ) .
U. Schmid, ‘Conceptualizing “Scribal” Performances: Reader’s Notes’, The Textual History of
the Greek New Testament: Changing Views in Contemporary Research (ed. K. Wachtel and
M. Holmes; Atlanta: SBL, ) –, at , ‘The inclination of scribes, at least in the view
of the ancients, seems to have been toward the inclusion of marginal material into the
main text.’
Each of these seventeen is in NA’s body text and in according to NA.
As argued by G. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
) – and God’s Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul
(Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, ) –.
Gal .; Thess ., pace E. Ellis, ‘The Silenced Wives of Corinth (I Cor. ,–)’, Essays in
Honour of Bruce M. Metzger, –, at .
Payne, Woman, –, cites fifty-five textual studies arguing this and analyzes seven external
and nine internal evidences these verses are a later addition.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 46.4.80.155, on 08 Aug 2021 at 01:54:27, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0028688517000121Vaticanus Distigme-obelos Symbols Mark Added Text
later addition. K. Haines-Eitzen affirms this of ‘[n]early all scholars now’. Verses
– silence women in church three times without any qualification. Chapter ,
however, guides how women should prophesy, and chapter , vv. , (x),
and affirm ‘all’ speaking in church. Popular resolutions of this apparent contradic-
tion limit .–’s demand for silence only to disruptive chatter or, recently contrived,
only to judging prophecies. These resolutions should be rejected since they permit
speech v. prohibits, namely asking questions from a desire to learn. In light of
substantial evidence that vv. – were originally a marginal gloss and no evidence
that any other block of text was added at this gap, these verses are the obvious can-
didate for the multi-word addition signalled by this distigme plus characteristic bar.
In six of the eight cases under discussion, the addition is to the line of text the bar
underscores. Paragraphoi also underscore a line of text when the paragraph break
occurs within that line. When a paragraph ends at the end of a line, a paragraphos
underscores that line, marking the interface between the paragraphs. Likewise, two
characteristic bars adjacent to distigmai underscore the last line of the original text
and mark the interface between original text and a later addition. Luke . ends
with a five-letter gap (see Fig. ). The characteristic bar marks the interface between
the original text and the later addition, ‘For many are called but few are chosen.’
Similarly, the two-letter gap compared with the next line at the end of Cor
. marks the interface between the original text and the widely recognised add-
ition, ‘Let women be silent in the churches … for it is a disgrace for a woman to
speak in church’ (vv. –) (see Fig. ). A line preceded by a bar but followed by
a distigme also separates John . from John . and marks the interface
between the original text and the Pericope Adulterae.
All eight additions are arguably important theologically and include some of
the passages most widely regarded as later additions: ‘Jesus said to them’ (Matt
J. Fitzmyer, First Corinthians (AB; New Haven: Yale, ) , citing twenty scholars, includ-
ing, Cope, Delling, Fuller, Keck and Roetzel.
Haines-Eitzen, Palimpsest, .
The addition of διδάσκω is before the high stop, so precedes this gap, is not a multi-word
addition, is not listed in NA, and is apparently in no Greek manuscript before the ninth
century. Furthermore, since its earliest occurrences are in ‘Western’ texts, it is doubtful that
any scribe would have noted the addition of διδάσκω but not the far more obvious and note-
worthy transposition of vv. –.
The gap in the preceding line after εκ is the result of the normal pattern throughout all thirty-
six Vaticanus occurrences of the word ἐκκλησία in Romans– Corinthians of only breaking
either after εκ (nine times, Rom .; Cor .; .; ., , , ; Cor ., ) or after
εκκλη (six times, Cor .; .; Cor ., ; .; .), not anywhere else in the
word. The breaks after εκ in Cor . ( A) and Cor . ( C) leave a similar
gap to that at Cor . ( A). Similar gaps are required in order to keep ἐκκλησία
together on one line at Cor . ( C); . ( B); and . ( A).
This does not imply that these are the only theologically important variants or that they follow
a particular thread theologically.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 46.4.80.155, on 08 Aug 2021 at 01:54:27, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0028688517000121 PHILIP B. PAYNE
.), ‘For the Son of Humanity came to save the lost’ (Matt .), ‘but Jesus
[with an article]’ (Mark .), ‘Blessed are you among women!’ (Luke .), ‘For
many are called but few are chosen’ (Luke .), ‘in the church. In those days’
(Acts .), ‘Because it was to convict them concerning him with all boldness,
since they were not able to face the truth directly’ (Acts .), and ‘Let women
be silent in the churches … for it is a disgrace for a woman to speak in church’
( Cor .–). The content of the addition is easily memorable in every case
except the one with distinctive downward strokes at Acts .. Scribe B, who
also marked text the LXX added to the MT with similarly shaped obeloi, was
apparently aware of these seven memorable NT additions, left a gap at the
exact point they begin, and highlighted their location with a distigme and charac-
teristic bar.
. Are These Characteristic Bars Paragraphoi or Obeloi, or Do They
Have a Dual Function?
C. Niccum writes that the bars following distigmai ‘date to the fourth
century’ but are paragraphoi, not obeloi. He, Miller and Shack, although acknow-
ledging that distigmai mark the location of textual variants, deny that there is any
association between any bar and the adjacent distigme, and they deny that either
these bars or the following gap mark the location of added text. Shack asserts
that it ‘is only a coincidence’ that these bars are followed by gaps that always
occur at the exact location where multi-word blocks of text were added.
Even if there were no graphic differences between these eight bars and paragra-
phoi, their combination with distigmai could signal a more specific purpose just as
other combined symbols do in Vaticanus. For example, a baseline dot functions like
a comma at A and , but added to a high stop it signifies a section break at
B. Similarly, a short slash descending from left of the middle of a paragraphos
specifies a section or book break. Although their component parts individually
convey distinct meanings, together these composite symbols convey a specific
meaning that incorporates some of the meaning of both. Similarly, scribe B may
have combined these distigmai with bars to convey a specific meaning.
There are, however, graphic differences between these eight bars and the
other twenty bars adjacent to a distigme. All eight combine noticeably greater
extension into the margin with noticeably greater length than the other twenty.
Functionally also, all eight mark the location of widely acknowledged, multi-
word, added text, which is the purpose of obeloi. This extraordinarily consistent
pattern supports the identification of these characteristic bars as obeloi.
Niccum, ‘Voice’, –.
Niccum, ‘Voice’, –; Miller, ‘Observations’, –.
Shack, ‘A Text’, .
For example, B, A, C, C, A.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 46.4.80.155, on 08 Aug 2021 at 01:54:27, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0028688517000121Vaticanus Distigme-obelos Symbols Mark Added Text
There are various possible relationships between the eight characteristic
bars and obeloi and/or paragraphoi. Some of these blocks of added text
occur at a natural paragraph break. Four of the seven gaps coincide with a
paragraph break in NA, and three with a paragraph break in the UBS.
Only the gap at the interface of Cor . and is in the middle of an
NA and UBS sentence. A. Lavrinovica concluded, however, that every manu-
script up to the twelfth century has a break at the beginning of v. , with the
possible exception of the ambiguous . This NA and UBS paragraph
break, therefore, is not where virtually any early scribe understood it should
be. Vaticanus has a high stop after v. , and all early ‘Western’ Greek text
scribes treat vv. – as a unit. Scribe B may have even regarded all seven
gaps as occurring at a paragraph break. Or scribe B may have positioned the
first three characteristic bars in the normal paragraphos location because
they are all at natural paragraph breaks, then retained the same position for
the others to keep them consistent.
By extending these eight bars on average almost twice as far into the margin as
the other twenty bars following a distigme, scribe B associated the bar with the
distigme marking the location of a textual variant. The obelos shape of the long
bar and each gap at the exact location of a block of widely acknowledged added
text strongly indicate that the bar does not function merely as a paragraphos,
but also or especially as an obelos.
Four factors explain why scribe B did not simply use the usual LXX obelos pos-
ition entirely in the margin to mark these blocks of text added to the NT. First, that
position had already been taken by the customary Vaticanus distigme marking
where these Greek variants occur. Second, this Vaticanus LXX obelos position
marks text actually in Vaticanus as added, but the added words are not in the
Vaticanus NT text, except in the last case. Third, that obelos position marks dif-
ferences between the LXX and MT, not between Greek texts. Fourth, readers asso-
ciated hexaplaric marginal symbols with the LXX, not the NT.
A dual purpose of () marking the location of added text () at a paragraph
break would explain the paragraphos position of the NT obeloi. An additional
benefit (or alternative explanation) of this position is that putting an obelos
below and to the right of a distigme is a logical way to specify the location of a spe-
cific kind of textual variant, the same kind scribe B’s obeloi identify in the LXX,
blocks of added text.
Matt .; . (NA only); Luke ./; Acts ., the last two with old section numbers.
Lavrinoviča, ‘.Kor.:.’, –.
See above, pp. –.
See above, pp. – and below, pp. –.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 46.4.80.155, on 08 Aug 2021 at 01:54:27, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0028688517000121 PHILIP B. PAYNE
. How Strong is the Evidence that These Eight Bars are not Simply
Paragraphoi?
What is the statistical probability that in a random distribution all eight char-
acteristic bars following distigmai would be at the location of a textual variant at least
three words long in manuscripts cited in NA’s apparatus? Using Matthew as a con-
servative baseline, the probability that all eight Vaticanus lines would coincide with
the location of a multi-word variant listed in NA is in . = ,,,,.
Since distigmai mark the location of textual variants, however, lines following
distigmai in Vaticanus are more likely to coincide with textual variants, including
multi-word variants, than random lines are. So, this author compared the occur-
rence of multi-word variants at these eight distigmai adjacent to characteristic
bars (eight of eight) to the twenty distigmai adjacent to undisputed paragraphoi
(two of twenty). The standard probability test shows that the likelihood of
such a stark difference occurring at random is far less than one in ,.
This is over times greater than the threshold needed to reject the null hypoth-
esis. In this case, the null hypothesis is that characteristic bars adjacent to distig-
mai do not correlate with multi-word textual variants. This test result justifies
distinguishing the eight characteristic bars from paragraphoi.
Furthermore, a gap follows all seven apparently original distigme-obelos symbols
at the exact point where a multi-word addition begins. This identifies their location
over sixteen times more precisely than simply somewhere in the line.
All this shows to a high degree of probability that these characteristic bars are
not simply paragraphoi that merely by chance share the following five character-
istic traits:
. Each occurs immediately after a distigme.
. Each extends noticeably further into the margin than most bars adjacent to
distigmai.
By the author’s count NA’s apparatus contains only multi-word variants in Matthew.
Compared to the , Vaticanus lines in Matthew, this is fewer than one in . Vaticanus
lines. Matthew is probably at the high end of how frequently multi-word variants occur
because NA, –, lists more papyri of Matthew (twenty-four) than of any other NT book
except John (thirty). Furthermore, variant readings due to harmonisation, which are often
multi-word, are more frequent in the synoptic Gospels than any other part of the NT.
Accordingly, five of the eight multi-word variants marked by distigme-obelos symbols are in
the synoptic Gospels, two are from Matthew, and three are inter-synoptic harmonisations.
The two are Mark . ( B) and Acts . ( B). Both bars are short, only about mm
long, and neither extends much into the margin.
For the details of this chi-square test, see www.pbpayne.com/wp-content/uploads///
Vaticanus-distigme-obelos-chi-square.pdf.
There are letters in the lines of Vaticanus column A, Matthew’s first column of
narrative text, an average of . letters per line.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 46.4.80.155, on 08 Aug 2021 at 01:54:27, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0028688517000121You can also read
